Patna High CourtCWJC/7274/2015dismissed

Rishi Kumar Yadav v. The Union Of India And ORS.

2015-05-19Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7274 of 2015 ====================================================== Rishi Kumar Yadav Son of Shri Shiv Dayal Yadav, Resident of Village + Post Office - Nimez, Police Station - Brahampur, District - Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs, South Block, New Delhi - 110011.

2. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission (Central Region), Department of Personal and Training, A-B Beli Road, Allahabad.

3. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, 8 A-B, Beli Road, Allahabad.

4. The Assistant Director, Seema Suraksha Bal, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gaurav Govind, Advocate.

For the Rsp. No. 1 & 4 :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CGC.

For the Rsp. No. 2 & 3 :

Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan, CGC.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 19-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly, having filed supplementary affidavit, admits that the petitioner did not fulfil the requirement as prescribed in the advertisement so far it relates to submission of the caste certificate, which was required to be a period of three years from the date of advertisement. Learned counsel submits that the caste certificate which was submitted by the petitioner was much older of the year 2007 and, therefore, did not fulfil the requirement of the advertisement.

3. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner as is also borne out from the records, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the petitioner did not fulfil the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7274 of 2015 (3) dt.19-05-2015 2/2 requirement of the advertisement and as such his candidature was rightly rejected.

4. That being so, this writ application fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U